Phoenix 24
The defense says the case was compromised from its origin.
Madrid, June 2026
Former Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero has asked the National Court to annul the entire Plus Ultra investigation, arguing that the proceedings were built on unlawfully obtained evidence and repeated violations of fundamental rights. His attorney, Víctor Manuel Moreno Catena, filed a broad challenge seeking the exclusion of evidence gathered by the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office and the invalidation of multiple judicial decisions. The request does not resolve the criminal accusations against Zapatero, but it could significantly weaken or dismantle the case if the court accepts that its evidentiary foundation was legally defective.
Zapatero remains under investigation in proceedings connected to the public rescue of the airline Plus Ultra and alleged influence-peddling, money laundering and documentary irregularities. He has denied participating in any illegal operation and maintains that his professional activity has always complied with the law. His defense now argues that the inquiry cannot continue legitimately because investigators and prosecutors allegedly exceeded their authority before and after the case reached the courts.
The annulment request identifies several rights that the defense considers violated, including the right to the judge predetermined by law, judicial protection, a fair process with full guarantees, privacy, data protection, the secrecy of communications and the presumption of innocence. Moreno Catena contends that these were not isolated procedural defects. In his view, the alleged violations affected the case from its initial formation and consequently contaminated the later searches, financial restrictions and investigative measures.
One central objection concerns how the investigation moved between judicial bodies. A Madrid court had previously examined the 53 million euro rescue granted to Plus Ultra during the pandemic. The Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office later introduced a separate line of inquiry involving alleged money laundering and other activities connected to the airline’s leadership and individuals in Zapatero’s environment. The defense argues that this new complaint involved different facts and should have been assigned through the ordinary judicial distribution system rather than directed to a court familiar with the earlier rescue case.
According to Zapatero’s lawyer, the complaint was effectively routed toward a particular jurisdiction instead of being submitted randomly to the legally competent court. He maintains that this deprived the former prime minister of his right to the ordinary judge established by law. The defense also questions the subsequent transfer of the case to the National Court after Zapatero emerged as a central figure. It argues that the jurisdictional path was not sufficiently justified and that the proceedings should have been redistributed rather than assigned to the same judicial body that had previously rejected an earlier complaint.
A second major dispute concerns evidence extracted from digital devices and storage systems seized in investigations involving other individuals. The defense has challenged material obtained from a mobile telephone confiscated in the United States and from a hard drive containing private communications. Some of that material had been gathered through cooperation involving foreign authorities. Zapatero’s legal team argues that the evidence may not satisfy the constitutional and procedural protections required under Spanish law.
The defense also claims that the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office conducted parallel investigative activity after the matter had already entered the judicial phase. Under this argument, once a judge assumes control of a criminal investigation, prosecutors and police cannot continue independent inquiries that bypass judicial supervision. Evidence generated through such parallel proceedings should therefore be excluded, according to the filing. The lawyer maintains that the contested analyses included private conversations examined without the necessary authorization or procedural safeguards.
The annulment request seeks to invalidate approximately a dozen decisions. These reportedly include the opening of the money-laundering line of investigation, searches at Plus Ultra’s offices, the transfer of the case to the National Court, the search of Zapatero’s professional office, proceedings involving a company connected to his daughters and the partial freezing of his accounts. The defense also challenges the creation of a separate inquiry concerning valuables found in a safe at his workplace.
The legal initiative arrived amid controversy over the publication of private messages and sensitive investigative information. Hundreds of communications between Zapatero and his secretary, together with details from a police report, were circulated through the media despite the confidential status of the proceedings. Judge José Luis Calama subsequently ordered an investigation to identify those responsible for the leaks and determine whether they may have committed offenses involving the disclosure of reserved judicial material.
Calama also introduced additional restrictions intended to protect sensitive information. Access to digital files containing parts of the case was limited, and some audiovisual material was placed in a separate section available only to the court and prosecutors. Other parties were expected to consult transcripts or review protected information under controlled conditions. These measures reflect judicial recognition that the repeated disclosures may have exceeded acceptable reporting on an ongoing criminal case.
The leaked material has strengthened the defense’s claim that Zapatero’s privacy and presumption of innocence have been damaged. However, the investigation into the leaks and the annulment request are legally distinct. Proving that confidential information was improperly disclosed would not automatically invalidate evidence previously obtained. The defense must persuade the court that the original collection, analysis or incorporation of the evidence violated fundamental rights in a manner serious enough to affect the entire proceeding.
The prosecution and investigating judge may argue that the contested evidence was obtained through lawful international cooperation, authorized investigative measures or independent sources. They could also maintain that even if certain materials are excluded, other evidence remains capable of supporting the investigation. Spanish criminal procedure distinguishes between an isolated invalid item and evidence derived directly from an unconstitutional act. The outcome may therefore depend on whether the court views the alleged defects as limited or structural.
Calama has no fixed deadline to decide the request, and his ruling may later be appealed. A rejection would allow the investigation to continue while preserving the defense’s objections for future proceedings. Acceptance of only part of the petition could remove specific communications, searches or reports without ending the entire case. A declaration of general nullity would represent the most consequential outcome because it could invalidate much of the investigative architecture developed since 2025.
Zapatero’s strategy now shifts the legal confrontation from the substance of the accusations to the legitimacy of the process used to construct them. His defense is not merely disputing the interpretation of payments, contacts or corporate relationships. It is arguing that the state crossed constitutional boundaries while gathering and organizing the evidence. The court must now decide whether the Plus Ultra case can proceed after those objections or whether its foundations require a complete judicial reset.
Lo visible y lo oculto, en contexto. / The visible and the hidden, in context.